[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#779878: marked as done (nmu: binutils-z80_4 binutils-mingw-w64_5.1 binutils-arm-none-eabi_5 possibly others)

Your message dated Fri, 22 May 2015 16:53:46 +0200
with message-id <555F42FA.3070609@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#779878: nmu: binutils-z80_4 binutils-mingw-w64_5.1 binutils-arm-none-eabi_5 possibly others
has caused the Debian Bug report #779878,
regarding nmu: binutils-z80_4 binutils-mingw-w64_5.1 binutils-arm-none-eabi_5 possibly others
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
779878: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779878
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

Hi,

as I saw binutils_2.25-5 got unblocked, I was wondering weather the
binutils-* packages built from binutils-source should be rebuilt
aginst the new version targeting Jessie?

There are binutils-{z80,mingw-w64,arm-none-eabi} currently in the
archive and built against older versions of binutils (cf. [1]).

The gcc-{arm-non-eabi,mingw-w64} packages are in the same situation,
so are gdb-{arm-none-eabi,avr,mingw-w64} (though for some of the
latter only the Debian revision of gdb changed).

Finally there's also gnat-4.9.

  nmu binutils-z80_4 . ALL . -m "Rebuilt against binutils 2.25-5."
  nmu binutils-mingw-w64_5.1 . ALL . -m "Rebuilt against binutils 2.25-5."
  nmu binutils-arm-none-eabi_5 . ALL . -m "Rebuilt against binutils 2.25-5."

Ansgar

  [1] <https://ftp-master.debian.org/users/ansgar/outdated-built-using.txt>

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 22/05/15 16:26, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> On 05/19/2015 07:04 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 05/03/15 22:45, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>>> as I saw binutils_2.25-5 got unblocked, I was wondering weather the
>>> binutils-* packages built from binutils-source should be rebuilt
>>> aginst the new version targeting Jessie?
>>>
>>> There are binutils-{z80,mingw-w64,arm-none-eabi} currently in the
>>> archive and built against older versions of binutils (cf. [1]).
>>>
>>> The gcc-{arm-non-eabi,mingw-w64} packages are in the same situation,
>>> so are gdb-{arm-none-eabi,avr,mingw-w64} (though for some of the
>>> latter only the Debian revision of gdb changed).
>>>
>>> Finally there's also gnat-4.9.
>>>
>>>   nmu binutils-z80_4 . ALL . -m "Rebuilt against binutils 2.25-5."
>>>   nmu binutils-mingw-w64_5.1 . ALL . -m "Rebuilt against binutils 2.25-5."
>>>   nmu binutils-arm-none-eabi_5 . ALL . -m "Rebuilt against binutils 2.25-5."
>>
>> These three happened in time for jessie.
>>
>> gnat-4.9 didn't. It was built against gcc-4.9_4.9.2-2, but we only ship
>> gcc4-.9_4.9.2-10 in stable AFAICS. That seems odd.
>>
>> I haven't checked gcc-*. Is this such an issue that we should do the binNMUs for
>> stable?
> 
> I don't think so. It might have been worth doing so before the release
> to make sure an eventual rebuild doesn't bring surprises, but it's too
> late for that.

Ack. Let's close this then.

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: